How a US Citizen Came to Be in America's Cross Hairs
This lengthy apologia for Obama's drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, his 16 year old son, and another American of marginal importance in Yemen is supposed to impress us with how meticulous the administration was about the legal issues surrounding the kill.
We learn that two lawyers who wrote "the definitive" critique of Bush's assertion of presidential wartime powers miraculously were able to find a way to justify the Obama administrations' actions with regard to Anwar-al-Awlaki. Well of course they were. They found a way to have their cake and eat it, too, saying that what Bush did, or rather how Bush's administration justified what was being done, was not legally correct and their justification for what Obama did was legally correct. A fine pair of cynical partisan lawyers they. I'm sure al-Awlaki is relieved to learn that his death was not the result of the President claiming too much authority but rather was the result of legal hair splitting over how much of an imminent threat to the US he, al-Awlaki, really was.
This article in the New York Times, linked above, also, I think, is supposed to impress us about how much of a one off thing al-Awlaki's assassination was and that this administration wouldn't consider killing American's anywhere without going through a painful and lengthy legal process. However, I come away with the impression that the administration's lawyers will find a way to justify whatever the President wants to do regardless of what it is even if it directly contradicts what those lawyers have written and opined in the past.
So, hypocritical as it might seem, they found their legal pretext to nail al-Awlaki, but not the other two. Not al-Awlaki's son or the guy whose sins against America amounted to publishing a blog. The latter two were taken out as collateral damage, a reminder that what we are talking about is war, a blunt instrument and one not well suited to legal niceties.
Failing to draw a hard line between war powers and civilian legalities does damage to both.
I think people are missing the broader picture where drone strikes against US citizens turned terrorist is concerned.
As such, the "Constituational - value driven perception" that has formulated does tend to remain fixed in legalism rather than fighting against tyranny or subvertive efforts against your homeland. Put another way: "Where IS the line drawn between protecting the Constituational rights of Americans who happen to live abroad yet continue to espouse apersions against American national security interests and defending against tyranny?"
The question folks should really be asking themselves is "Why hasn't he come forward and turned himself in to U.S. authorities" so that he could be tried justly in U.S. courts for treason? People don't ask themselves such questions because they are concerned not with justice under the law, but rather which side is right and which is wrong based moreso on political ideology than adherence to the law.
On a personal note: I've struggle with the issue of drone strikes against Americans abroad for some time now, but only came to the conclusion recently that such strikes are justifiable but only after all other avenues to capture said fugative have been exsaulted.
Yes, that's right: YEMEN!
Frankly, I would rather we did capture the guy and give him his day in court, but apparently that wasn't possible. So, he got what he got.
and he sought a legal opinion to assist that determination when it was found that the enemy combatant was also of American birth
and his decision appears consistent with the proffered legal reasoning
Define “terrorist”. This could be read as claiming people are missing the broader picture where drone strikes against US citizens turned criminals is concerned.
This question seems to espouse the idea that the Constitution may be disregarded, given time and circumstance, or that it no longer applies to you, if you commit crimes, or even suspected of being an enemy combatant.
Strict adherence to the law is driven by political ideology. The Constitution was specifically meant to restrain government from tyranny. It makes no sense to ask why a criminal doesn’t turn himself in, and to say those who do not ask this question are more concerned with personal morality. Strict adherence to the law IS political ideology. The Constitution is the line in the sand whether you are a criminal or the government.
It is good to exhaust all avenues, but this basically claims that ‘anything goes’ once patience has run out.
Then if they are hiding him, not cooperating with his capture as he continues to even make attacks on the United States, then we know who we can declare war on (if nothing else, to expedite cooperation), don’t we? Especially if he is the true threat the government says he was.
So you espouse imperialist policies that make the whole world a battle field in which the American government has the right to fire missiles anywhere it chooses, even without a given countries cooperation. Try that crap in Russia or China and see what happens.
You have fine rationalization for the dismissal of the rule of law.
The problem is Anwar-al-Awlaki never denied what he did - he bragged about it - in my book that is an informal way of pleading guilty.
Would it really have been necessary to charge him with treason, murder and conspiracy to commit murder (among a slew of charges)?
We would have had to charge him, issue an arrest warrant - find him, capture him, bring him back to the US and once that impossible task was done and many were killed in the process, give Anwar-al-Awlaki a trial - which without question would be al-Awlaki on a soapbox....
As a libertarian I'm all for going through the correct channels of due process but a situation like al-Awlaki is a totally different scenario and beast.
It seems that there is the Constitution and there is the Constitution of your imagination.
In the real Constitution when a US citizen joins foreign combatants to take up arms against the US then he has revoked his citizenship and becomes a foreign combatant. There need no longer be any concern about his rights as a citizen. His disposition becomes a military matter to be handled by military means, and that includes his identification as a foreign combatant. So it is not a matter of patience running out and claiming that anything goes, it is a matter of established law.
People are often astonished to find something in the Constitution that they don't like, but there it is.
Sometimes the evidence against an individual is so overwhelmingly blunt that due process would be moot. Anwar-al-Awlaki is a good example of that.
Does someone who murders someone on video tape then goes bragging about it and admitting it proudly really need due process?
It's not exactly like Anwar-al-Awlaki was shy about his plight....
No, I am not. I am responding to someone who wrote "show that the legal opinion should be shelved because it is erroneous and i will default to the subsequent, correct legal opinion until that time, i would adopt the legal opinion which has been made available to be relied upon" to support his attempt to equate law with opinion of WH legal counsel
With all due respect, I have given reference to the imaginary Constitution you claim is a figment of my imagination.
Can you please point out to me, in the real Constitution, the support for your assertion; "when a US citizen joins foreign combatants to take up arms against the US then he has revoked his citizenship and becomes a foreign combatant. There need no longer be any concern about his rights as a citizen. His disposition becomes a military matter to be handled by military means, and that includes his identification as a foreign combatant."?
You are correct in that a legal opinion is not the law. It is what it is: a legal opinion or interpretation of the law. However, from the Executive, such opinions have long given the President clout - justification - to either expand his legal reach or ignore portions of the law as he sees fit.
It's that damned Commander in Chief thing again. As part of his authority over foreign affairs, the President directs the State Department to administer procedures whereby a person automatically loses his citizenship, and those rules are part of that.
The sad story of William Alexander Morgan provides an example:
William Alexander Morgan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's that damned Commander in Chief thing again. As part of his authority over foreign affairs, the President directs the State Department to administer procedures whereby a person automatically loses his citizenship, and those rules are part of that.
The sad story of William Alexander Morgan provides an example:
William Alexander Morgan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I already debunked your false claims the last time you posted this. An American can only lose their citizenship under the circumstances specified by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
8 USC § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions | Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
Al-Awlaki performed no actions that meet the standards of the law and would result in the loss of citizenship. The state department has issue no such claim either. The memo released discussing the legality of the drone strikes didn't make any mention about removing citizenship, merely stating it wasn't an obstacle to assassination.
The whole concept is merely a made up fantasy of yours that contradicts existing laws, legal precedent, the constitution and the actions of the state department. Al-Awlaki was a citizen on the day he was killed and the current administration considers that acceptable, no way around it.
Wikipedia is not a citation from the Constitution, nor does that link give reference to the Constitution, to support your assertion.
The real Constitution authorizes Congress to create the rules on citizenship in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”
They did this in the US Code 8 USC § 1481 that, rathi, points out.
As to Alexander Morgan, I will point out that the State Department revoking his citizenship, doesn’t entail whether or not such was lawful. And we should notice that it was probably not lawful since “In April 2007, the US State Department declared that Morgan's US citizenship was effectively restored, nearly 50 years after the government stripped him of his rights in 1959”. They revoked it based on 8 USC § 1481 (3) “entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States”. In which he was not engaged in hostilities, and if he were, that would make Article 3 Section 3 applicable.
Article 3 Section 3 “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court”
As the US Code coincides... 8 USC § 1481 Loss of nationality … “(7) committing any act of treason against, … … the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
The Commander in Chief does not have the authority to willy nilly revoke citizenship.
The country need not be at war with the US for the State department to revoke his citizenship.
If he were at war with the US the statute doesn't necessarily apply unless the President says it does.
Nope, I debunk you back. The Act isn't binding on the President in war time with regard to his functions as Commander in Chief. He may have the State Department deal with the issue of citizenship of a combatant at war with the US if he thinks it best, but he need not.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States...." There is no indication in these words of a fleeting citizenship, good at the moment it is acquired but subject to destruction by the Government at any time. Rather the Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit.
True, we need not be at war for some other sections of that statute to apply, except under the section of the US Code which states the conditions and standards on which citizenship may be revoked for serving in the armed forces of a foreign state;
8 USC § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions:
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States
What part of that don’t you get in order to say it is strictly a “peacetime” statute?
Please point out to me the so-called war-time statute which supports that assertion. You have yet to cite any laws, statutes, or even any part of the Constitution to back up your claims. Do so, or yield.
The imperial presidency only exists in your mind, not in the law.
From the Supreme Court decision Afroyim v. Rusk
Again, this doesn't apply in wartime. It's not a wartime case.
The powers of the Commander in Chief are vestigial remnants of the powers of a monarch, the sole exception that the founders granted those who worried that not having a strong executive could turn out to be a big liability. And even then the Commander in Chief was limited to 2 years of funding after which his war making powers could be shut down in toto by Congress. Hardly "imperial" at all.
There's no such thing as a statute that can direct the President or restrict his actions in the conduct of war. See Separation of Powers. See President as Commander in Chief.
See Federalist Papers # 25 to 28 or thereabouts. The sole means of control the Congress has on Presidential war powers is to restrict funding, and in the Federalist Papers that is regarded as the supreme authority! Do you see anything in the Constitution that says that the President is the Commander in Chief subject to the advice and consent of the Senate or some such? No, there is no qualification or limitation to that authority at all.
A) Afroyim v. Rusk was in 1967. While lacking official an official declaration of war, it was as much "wartime" as it is today.
B) The idea that supreme court rulings only apply in peacetime is complete and utter grade A horse **** that has zero basis in either law, logic, or sanity.
The powers of the commander in chief are to command the army. Not become an all powerful dictator during the vaguely defined "wartime" who can dictate non-military affairs and ignore the constitution. Pretending the president is a monarch during war is little more than delusion.
No, the issue is executive authority over war in wartime vs. ordinary executive authority. No, the Afroyim vs Rusk case was not an issue of executive authority over war matters. You seem to think that good Constitutional law is always "sane". That's naïve.
Let me sum it up: In war the President is an absolute dictator ... until the money runs out.
You keep wanting limitations of ordinary executive authority to leak into wartime authority. It doesn't work. You say that the powers of the commander in chief are to command the army. He commands the whole military and everything that appends to that, and that says it all. He commands without oversight, without any second guessing. Without even the requirement to report to Congress. That's how it is in the Constitution, no use wishing it was different.
No, the issue is executive authority over war in wartime vs. ordinary executive authority. No, the Afroyim vs Rusk case was not an issue of executive authority over war matters. You seem to think that good Constitutional law is always "sane". That's naïve.
Let me sum it up: In war the President is an absolute dictator ... until the money runs out.
You keep wanting limitations of ordinary executive authority to leak into wartime authority. It doesn't work. You say that the powers of the commander in chief are to command the army. He commands the whole military and everything that appends to that, and that says it all. He commands without oversight, without any second guessing. Without even the requirement to report to Congress. That's how it is in the Constitution, no use wishing it was different.
I've cited my legal claims in this thread, you have nothing to back up any of your fantasies. Show some proof that the mythical wartime powers you posit actually exist in law.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?